#the demisexual neil discourse.

[jeanmoreaux]

just had to read the words “I’ve been told that there actually ARE aftg folks on tumblr I just haven’t found them yet.” with my own eyes and it took a decade off my life. are we a joke to you??? like bestie WDYM WE TUMBLRINAS ARE THE OG AFTG FOLK

[youdontknowhowtodiequietly]

neil josten is demisexual, and, i argue, demiromantic too. he said he didn't swing because he was never allowed to form any meaningful contact with anyone outside of his mom. but he was aware he was capable of attraction. that is why he is demi. i love Nora, she gave demi people recognition in a time where everyone was very hostile to asexual people in general (tbf they still are hostile because people are fucking idiots) and i think it's beautiful

[tiny-planet-13]

idk if this is just a very twitteresque thing but there's so much stupid discourse about Neil and his sexuality rn like guys pls go educate yourselves on the absolute minimum basics of demisexuality it's really not a hard concept to grasp

I say this in the most loving way possible as a fellow aro/acespec person can you please let us have our sexualities without it becoming some great discussion and/or denial of such 🫶

[cabeswaterdrowned]

kevneil & kandrew ratingz ?

Kevneil: 6.5,  it’s a ship that theoretically aligns with themes I enjoy and is an interesting dynamic that’s very important to the fabric of Aftg so if I were in an Aftg hyperfixation spiral I might round up for that, but it’s not one that pulls on my emotions a lot part of that is definitely for char biased Andrew Stan reasons other aspects of Aftg aren’t going to get as much emotion out of me, another part of it is that while I like the ship in theory I don’t tend to like interpretations of it where Neil is written as being really lustful regarding Kevin from early tfc because of how that erases the way Neil’s demisexuality is portrayed. Of the Kandreil fics I’ve read I enjoy more when Neil has a realization about his growing/deepening feelings that he didn’t notice forming while they did more similar to that Andreil scene. 

Kandrew: 9/10 I was fully insane about them for like a couple years …. I love a right person wrong time tumultuous homoerotic friendship with a class disparity turned divorced couple (yes ik the on the nose parallels in the fandom are Ronsey-Kandrew Adansey-Kevneil and why that is but, when it comes to things that really Get Me in ships Adansey and Kandrew are aligned in some ways imo. They’re also aligned in sparking more annoying discourse than any of the other duos it girls! legends!). They’re soo compelling and honestly this is a case where I think not getting either chars pov and instead getting an imperfect picture of the dynamic from Neil with all the past history alluded to makes me 10x more insane about it and excites my imagination a lot more than if we did have that. 

(Send me ships to rate out of 10)

[ventwren]

if the apocalypse comes . . . BEEP ME !

════════════════════════

════════════════════════

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ ABOUT ME !

wren , white eng-irish catholic ,

tme boygirl demisexual dyke

( they/(s)he ) . . . gnc butch !

severe anxiety + ocd + adhd

+ psychotic tendencies </3

+ likely cluster b/c disorder

taken by andy ♡

— 17.07.22

════════════════════════

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ INTERESTS !

⋆ all for the game

⋆ buffy the vampire slayer

⋆ mary shelley’s frankenstein

⋆ red dead redemption

⋆ killing eve

⋆ overwatch

⋆ the raven cycle

⋆ amc’s iwtv

⋆ the vampire chronicles

⋆ naruto

⋆ rupaul’s drag race

⋆ monster high

⋆ doll collection

⋆ art, diy and writing

⋆ tarot (reading)

⋆ philosophy and theology

⋆ lycanthropy

⋆ zombie media + horror

════════════════════════

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ KIN ! ════════════

🦊 neil josten . . . aftg ❀

🏹 buffy summers . . . btvs ❀

🧸 villanelle . . . killing eve ❀

🩸 daniel molloy . . . tvc ❀

🍑 lisa swallows . . . lf (2024)

🗝️ ginger fitzgerald . . . gs

📿 ronan lynch . . . trc

🐺 john marston . . . rdr(2)

🐊 sadie adler . . . rdr2

🧨 elizabeth ashe . . . ovw

🏯 beauregard lionett . . . cr

🦒 ellie williams . . . tlou

🐝 lottie matthews . . . yjs

🥅 van palmer . . . yjs

🛹 peter parker . . . tasm/ps4

🥃 leon kennedy . . . re (all)

🚲 bill denbrough . . . it (all)

🐎 maggie greene . . . twd

🔥 prince zuko . . . a:tla

🐾 stiles stilinski . . . teen wolf

💉 thomas . . . the maze runner

🥀 alistair theirin . . . da:o/i

🦆 tim drake . . . dc comics

🪙 richard papen . . . tsh

💥 vi & viktor. . . arcane (series)

🍂 keyleth . . . vox machina

🚬 nicky nichols . . . oitnb

+ more!

❀ = preferably no doubles if you

consider these characters a

big part of your identity! i don’t

think it’ll be comfortable for

either of us ♡

════════════════════════

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ DNFI ! ═══════════

⋆ if you have an issue with the

word DYKE; i am one, and i

cannot and will not tag it.

⋆ i talk about my relationship

and pda my partner a lot, & i

love other couples! don’t

follow if youre uncomfortable

with that.

⋆ you ‘reclaim’ dyke & use lesbian

identity labels (namely butch)

as a nonlesbian, unless you

participate in or its in the

context of ballroom culture.

⋆ you engage in discourse around

lesbianism, ie. arguments

that butchfemme culture is

‘heteronormative’, mspec

lesbianism, anti he/him/

transmale lesbian rhetoric. i

feel very strongly towards

these subjects, lesbophobia

will be confronted and/or

blocked.

⋆ im very comfortable with non-

religious people/atheists, but

we will not get along if you

are loudly antitheist and can’t

respect (people of) faith. this

is not at all exclusive to my

own faith or catholicism &

christianity — intolerance of

any faith is unacceptable,

dangerous, and not as

progressive as many like to

believe; it hurts queer people

of marginalised faith more

than it helps others. i don’t

talk about my faith often, if i

do it’ll be more so about

sociopolitical/historical

issues and relations that

effect people, especially

fenians still today.

⋆ you disrespect addicts and the

difficulties of addiction &

you glorify substance abuse.

⋆ you carry ANY zionist ideals,

sentiment or sympathy, or

entertain any pinkwashing

towards the palestinian

genocide or hate for islam/

arab nations/people of non-

western culture or faith.

⋆ you carry or spread ANY terf

rhetoric, or don’t care to

rework your ideas and

terminology or consider trans

women in your conversations.

i love my trans sisters & hold

them close in community and

solidarity.

⋆ antiblackness, antisemitism &

any other forms of white

supremacy will obviously be

blocked and reported.

⋆ you openly dislike any of my

interests.

⋆ you’re openly anti spike/spuffy.

BOOO i don’t care to rehash

20 year old btvs discourse! i

promise you i have a totally

insanely nuanced view of the

show/franchise already.

i may sound pretty strongheaded

here but im generally really quite

a relaxed and approachable user!

i’m simply hard and fast about

my morals and don’t hope to

interact with those who oppose

them ♡

════════════════════════

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ MINOR KIN ! ════════

( these are more for fun / expressions

of gender and personality quirks than

heavily personal like the above kins!

doubles are fine and this list isn’t an

essential read )

🔪 tatum riley . . . scream

🚪 chandler bing . . . friends

🖊️ annie edison . . . community

👗 madeleine . . . amc iwtv

🎋 genji shimada . . . overwatch

🖕🏻 tara chambler . . . twd

🪪 jill valentine . . . resident evil

🦋 jackie taylor . . . yjs

🗡️ undyne . . . undertale

🪓 susie . . . deltarune

📜 mary-beth gaskill . . . rdr2

💔 jean-pierre polnareff . . . jjba

🪭 temari . . . naruto

🀄️ shikamaru . . . naruto

🎴 kakashi . . . naruto

🌸 sakura . . . naruto

🎤 envy adams . . . spvtw

🌀 coraline . . . coraline (2006)

🐈 power . . . chainsaw man

⚔️ aki . . . chainsaw man

💼 leorio paradinight . . . hxh

🍯 christopher robin . . . wtp

🥩 joel hammond . . . scd

🩵 polly geist . . . monster prom

🍰 strawberry shortcake . . .

🍎 applejack . . . mlp

🌈 rainbowdash . . . mlp

☀️ sunset shimmer . . . mlp

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ DEAD BY DAYLIGHT ! ════

🏕️ jake park

🗻 julie kostenko

🏍️ yui kimura

🐦‍⬛ camina mora / the artist

🐰 anna / the huntress

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ MONSTER HIGH ! ═════

🌊 lagoona blue

🐅 toralei stripe

🎲 operetta

👜 scarah screams

🏰 lorna mcnessie

⚙️ robecca steam

👛 rochelle goyle

👓 jackson jekyll

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ OTHER DOLLS ! ══════

🐒 meygan . . . bratz

🌶️ roxxi . . . bratz

🃏 lizzie hearts . . . eah

🪵 cerise hood . . . eah

ˏˋ°•જ⁀➷ COMFORT CHARACTERS ! ═

( i associate most of these with my partner, which

i’ll mark with a ‘❀’, or my best friend josh, which i’ll

mark with a ‘☽’ — i’ll probably struggle to view

others as them for that reason, i’m sorry! )

🔑 andrew minyard . . . aftg ❀

🥍 david wymack . . . aftg

⚰️ william/‘spike’ . . . btvs ❀

📚 rupert giles . . . btvs

💄 cordelia chase . . . btvs ☽

🪽 the vampire armand . . . tvc ❀

💍 the creature . . . lf (2024)

🔥 louis de pointe du lac . . . amc

⛪️ adam parrish . . . trc ❀

🕸️ amélie lacroix . . . ovw ❀

🦖 joel miller . . . the last of us

🍷 eve polastri . . . killing eve ❀

🌡️ konstantin . . . killing eve

🩹 eddie kaspbrak . . . it (all) ☽

🐓 galina ‘red’ reznikov . . . oitnb

🪻 brigitte fitzgerald . . . gs

📔 shauna shipman . . . yjs

⚒️ jayce talis . . . arcane ❀

🏒 sokol . . . payday ❀

☎️ claire redfield . . . re ❀

🪦 chris redfield . . . re ☽

════════════════════════

[wheredidthe80sgo]

me, demisexual, once again watching the discourse about neil’s demisexuality happening on twitter😃

[stick-ball]

Just wanna say (shocking i know) that seeing positive discourse about Neil Josten's sexuality makes me very happy. Demisexuality is not a fancier word for homosexuality and it's great that more people are talking about how us, the acespecs in this fandom feel about the erasure.

It's pretty certain finding a character that represents demisexuality in a realistic and relatable way is not something that happens often, and that's probably why more and more of the fans in this fandom identify as demisexuals now that its grown a bigger audience. I personally found the books over 5 years ago, through a lucky coincidence, not knowing then what I was stepping into, but less than 50 pages in I was hooked. Not because I could smell the found family trope like a shark smells blood, not because sports and mafia tropes excited me. Nah, many books have that, although maybe not like that, you know. No, I was hooked and losing my sleep on the last few days i had before my high school final exams because of Neil's character, who was so fresh, original and yet so painfully familiar.

Identity means a lot. To you, personally, to how you are perceived, to the rights other people let you have in a society, to how you will shape the world around you. We all care deeply about finding who we are, and who that is, we have to learn. Let us learn, when the umbrella terms don't quite fit, what it is, that lies underneath them. Humanity is obsessed with naming things, always was, wasn't it, so if my language can have over 20 variations of saying the number 2, why can't I and kids who are in a similiar place where I once was, have someone, even if imaginary, who reflects this crucial part of what our identity is?

[mireyrr]

“... angels are sexless unless they really want to make an effort” (Good Omens).

Aziraphale and Crowley are in an ace relationship (or Arrangement as they would put it) and no one can convince me otherwise.

[mimiceon]

.

[aftgscenes]

Input from a Demisexual lesbain.

I think this quote/part of the book is really up to  interpretation. Though Neil did say he had kissed girls before, I don’t think that is really definitive on someone sexuality, especially at a young age. I for one was “boy crazy” growing up, I thought i was in love with every boy who made eye contact this me. Obviously I was not actually attracted to them, and I grew out of that phase and realized I was gay. Yet even after I came out as a lesbain (when I was 14), I didn’t come to terms with my Demisexuality till I was 17! (and tbh I still struggle with my label sometimes) 

I feel it’s also important to mention that kissing someone does not equal sexual attraction and Demisexual people have just as much right to experiment with their sexuality as anyone else. It’s perfectly okay to be one the asexual spectrum and still be confused.

Okay, now with all that being said, I do absolutely agree that we need to stop erasing neils abuse and the effects it has on him. I feel about of people paint Neil and the more stable one in his and Andrews relationship but he too is constantly dealing with his own abuse. Also you are 100% Demisexuality is NOT a choice!

Conclusion: if you want to hc Neil as Demisexual I say go for it! It really is up to interpretation and I personally, as a Demisexual person, really like this hc and it has brought me comfort. And if it has brought you comfort that isn’t a bad thing and you aren’t wrong for it. Bottom line is be respectful of Demisexual people and realize that no one chooses their sexuality.

neil josten is not demisexual. neil josten is not demisexual, and if he was, he would be awful demi rep. why? allow me, an aromantic asexual, to break it down for you

first off, let me define demisexuality, just so we’re on the same page. demisexuality is the absence of any sexual attraction unless a strong emotional connection with somebody has been established. again, it is the absence of sexual feelings unless certain conditions are met

next, let me remind you of this quote from the raven king: (tw for abuse)

Neil thought of his mother's heavy fists on his skin and her fingers knotting in his hair. She'd told him time and time again girls were dangerous. They got inside a man's head, she said. They got under a man's skin. They could make a man want to change the world starting with himself. They'd turn him inside out and pull out all his secrets. They might mean well but it'd get all of them killed in the end.

this is referencing a time when neil did feel attraction to girls, specifically girls neil had never met or formed a bond with, and his mother beat him up for this attraction. neil learned from a young age that any sort of sexual/romantic attraction would be punished and was not allowed under any circumstances. he had to teach himself to repress those feelings of attraction, because otherwise they caused him pain. this is not the absence of an emotion, it is the active repression of an emotion. these are two very different things

by calling neil demisexual, you are both erasing his trauma and suggesting that demisexuality is a choice. it is very clearly demonstrated in the books that neil chooses not to act on his sexual attraction, and that the reason for this is trauma from his mother. stop equating asexuality with abuse, it isn’t the “awesome rep” you think it is.

[professionalfangirl24601]

Your response was so right and I really liked the posts you linked as well!

And like, idk but I feel like people saying “oh this book is ableist” is a very blanket statement while ignoring that most people didn’t know the r word was a slur in like 2015 which is around when the books came out. Like this wasn’t common knowledge to people, and it still isn’t common knowledge to a lot of people! It’s fine to warn people before reading like, “hey this book has ableist language by the way so watch out for that” but that doesn’t mean Nora is ableist.

Also like as a woc, i have my own issues with people thinking the books are racist. I think Nicky could’ve definitely been handled better, but idk my thoughts about Nicky are more like “look how much he gave up for his cousins and how much he cared about them” instead of specifically the bad stuff he does. Like they’re all traumatized, I don’t expect them to be perfect or not say bad things. As for making all the villains asian, I feel like people just forget,,,,about Nathan? And Lola? And literally everyone in the scene where Neil gets kidnapped? And Drake? Like with all of the shitty people in aftg, I don’t even consider the yakuza the bad guys, only Riko and Tetsuji. My friend described it as Nora just having like “white blindness” and not realizing how stuff she writes can come across rather than intentionally being harmful, which makes a big difference to me.

I also hate the take that it’s like aphobic, considering Nora is aro ace and that there are people who don’t know what asexual or aromantic means. While it’s not great for Nicky to constantly push Neil for his sexuality, I also don’t blame him for not knowing that Neil is demisexual, especially considering that Neil didn’t know himself! And especially because there’s still so much ace discourse on tumblr! Like people still don’t know stuff about asexuality and aromanticism, so why do you expect her to write characters who are experts in it?

I think people forget that writing about problematic characters doesn’t make the author problematic. Also I agree that I don’t think aftg is even written that badly, but I also base books on how they make me feel, and I’ve been into aftg for 2 years (which is relatively long for me to be into something).

Sorry I rambled a lot but I just don’t like all the aftg hate, nor do I get repeating the criticism for it if people already know.

You bring up some very good points and It makes me want to go on another rant. And don't worry, I loved hearing your thoughts.

So the same warning here. Some discussions of racism, ableism and aphobia below the cut.

In general, I think accusing complete strangers of being x-phobic is a worse thing to do than defending them. Innocent until proven wrong, you know. I don't think there's enough proof of Nora being ableist in the books, and saying that she is can be very harmful. Here's a great post about aftg and ableism, and I'm glad you liked the previous ones :D

The yakuza wasn't even the main villain there. Considering it's well, the mafia, it didn't have that negative role. Ichirou wasn't portrayed as vicious and cruel, Nathan was. Ichirou didn't turn the nest into hell, Riko and Tetsuji did.

Riko was a complex character who had his motives and his race didn't have to do anything with his actions. If Nora wrote that Riko tortured people because he was Asian (? How??, but still), that would be racist.

This may be a controversial opinion, but I really don't like when people act like minorities can't be bad people. Isn't basing expectations of them on their race... racist?

Imagine saying Nathan being the villain of the story was anti-red haired people (let's pretend he's ginger, because there are people who actually hate them, for some reason. And I'm not comparing race to hair color, it's just the same logic). Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Especially because Neil, a flawed chatacter who's also one of the "good guys" has red hair too.

As a white person, I know I don't understand racism as well as poc, so correct me if I'm being wrong. I know that good representation is very important. But is having both white and poc characters being morally gray and deeply flawed that racist?

I really like the term "white blindness". Sometimes people come across as racist by accident or not thinking things through properly and it's so nice of you and your friend to acknowledge this.

(Like now I think I'm somehow being racist but I really am not. I don't know if what I said conveyed my opinion well, but please don't hesitate to send me another ask if you think I'm being one.)

I think aphobia is very compicated in the books. Of course Nicky saying life can't be good without a significant other and that he would give Neil a little "push" was clearly aphobic. Because Neil had said that he didn't swing before that and Nicky didn't believe him.

But considering how little known demisexuality was in the 00's, was Matt assuming Neil was gay after he found out about him and Andrew aphobic too? I think if Neil had explained that he was only attracted to Andrew, not men in general, Matt would have believed him.

Of course, in the end it doean't matter in this discussion because writing about it doesn't make Nora aphobic. It's purely realistic, both the people being assholes and just ignorant of it.

I've heard people say both, that they loved how trauma was handled in the books and that they hated it. It's clear that the books aren't for everyone. It usually leaves the reader either completely in love with it or filled with hate. Love and hate are both very strong emotions and people "criticizing" it isn't new either. I just hope it doesn't get to the point where aftg is just known as this horrible book and people don't even bother with reading it before judging it and writing hateful posts.

[bloody-wonder]

You know I gotta ask now for the top aftg fandom tropes that you hate

the post about fanon neil got very popular overnight and i got a bunch of new followers so let’s scare them away haha

10) when neil goes to therapy. i know he needs to but it’s very important for me that he doesn’t want to and no one forces him. he knows it works for andrew and respects his choices and andrew respects his - yet in so many fics andrew forces neil to go to therapy. it makes me uncomfortable.

9) when the foxes are depicted as way too friendly with each other. the twinyards bicker and wrestle like normal siblings. neil and allison go shopping. neil and katelyn talk about their men over a cup of coffee. like... yeah no.

8) andrew and neil hate kevin. that’s not true, they’re friends - maybe not of the matt & neil variety but still. i’ve written about them in my older posts so i won’t repeat it here but andrew and neil LIKE kevin and they are FRIENDS. i like when they tease him about exy and stuff but there’s a line between casual and vicious teasing and it’s crossed all too often.

7) aaron learns not to be homophobic. in fics where he’s a side character it happens after another argument with nicky, neil or andrew which canon aaron would never start and by the end he apologizes and becomes “redeemed tm”. even the best post canon fic lessons in cartography has this.

6) nora said that they don’t really come out to the public and i like this very much which is why i dislike the coming out trope that is very common in minyard-josten rivalry fics. their relationship and identites are private and they don’t owe anybody any information or clarification. also i think that they wouldn’t want to come out - especially not by kissing on the court after winning a match. also, they don’t go to pride parades.

5) when neil wants to figure out his sexuality and goes to nicky for advice. this is wrong on so many levels. nicky is the last person who you’d want to discuss sex with and also he doesn’t seem like he’d know a single thing about the ace spectrum. i think neil doesn’t bother with labels but if he does then he wouldn’t be comfortable talking about his and andrew’s private stuff to anyone but andrew so if someone informs him about demisexuality it would be him. 

4) when neil tries to change andrew and how he expresses his feelings. stop saying i hate you. stop saying it’s nothing. let’s hold hands in public. let’s cuddle during movie nights. and in the fic andrew does it cause he’d do anything for neil. but i believe the condition is that neil wouldn’t make such conditions so this trope doesn’t make any sense and feels very much like the writer is self-projecting onto neil and wants to turn andrew into their ideal partner. 

3) scenarios in which andreil have to “prove” to the foxes that they’re an item. on the in-universe level it happens through pda which i hate with all my heart and on the meta level it happens through the fic structure in which one of the foxes walks in on andreil being soft and only then do they realize that andreil is legit and they’re good for each other. first of all it has this voyeuristic angle which makes me uncomfortable but secondly it reinforces the idea that a relationship is a performance and it doesn’t exist unless the audience sees it and gives good reviews. also in this scenario the foxes become stand-ins for the fans which judge how andreil is portrayed and often judge them “unhealthy” and “not valid” unless they perform some kind of amatonormative, often heteronormative dynamic. i have many feelings about this and all of them are bad.

2) andrew and neil “heal” and it completely changes their personalities. neil becomes fanon neil. andrew smiles and laughs and uses pet names. they do couples stuff like dates by candle light and pda bcs “they deserve it”. they may have lived through some bad events but it’s all in the past. now they are very normal and healed and soft and everything’s fine. fuck nora.

1) “fuck nora they say ily and marry” - this i can never accept or overlook. it’s basically what’s responsible for me becoming an aftg discourse blogger - if you look at my older posts you’ll see that that’s where my origin lies. and i still stand by everything i said, only back then i thought it’s arophobia but now i know more and think that it doesn’t necessarily have something to do with people being amatonormative - it mostly has to do with people lacking common sense and decency.

[pipedream]

.

[starberry-cupcake]

It’s the end of Aro Week and I decided to throw caution to the wind and talk about something that can potentially be a polarizing topic. I’m putting it on read-more not only because of length but also because in 2020 this blog turns 10 years of age and I’ve learned to leave a window open for retreat when it comes to Opinions, so I don’t know how long I’ll dare to have this up. 

This is going to be about the aroace experience, fandom, ships, representation, fanservice, amatonormativity, allosexual normativity and transformative fanwork. 

So, basically, a minefield, so tread with care. 

Since the dawn of fandom time, there has been an aspect of it that is known (nowadays) as transformative. There are studies, dissertations and essays about this, and most if not all agree on the fact that the portion of fandom that is transformative tends to belong to the less represented portion of it in the media they consume. 

It’s mostly people whose identities are rarely represented those who tend to transform, making a space in their favorite pieces of media for themselves and others. That has, in tow, created a scene in which authors and content creators are born within fandom and get exposed to these types of content and reproduce them as well.

The cornerstone of transformative fandom, to the point of being one of the main organizational elements in fandom-driven platforms, are ships. And when someone mentions the word “ship”, it most often comes with the added non-said descriptive of “romantic” and “sexual” attached to it. 

Now, like I said, a lot of those who are involved in transformative fandom tend to go for less represented types of identities, and heteronormativity tends to be questioned often. Sometimes, it is legitimately for representation purposes, sometimes it’s for objectifying reasons. 

On the other hand, in the media-creating sphere, there is a thing known as “baiting”. This word is used when pieces of media hint towards non het relationships that end up not coming to fruition. 

This issue has reached paragons of shamelessness with creators using fandom for their own purposes, like making a series win an award, getting renewed or gathering numbers in cons, to then turn against the same portion of fandom by banning transformative fandom from cons, meet and greets and having actors and crew members publicly shame fanfiction or fanart. It became serious shit. 

This, in tow, brought another problem. Baiting (and what used to be considered “queer-coding”) started becoming an immediate red flag for people, a warning to whether getting engaged or not with a piece of media. 

In the mostly legitimate pitchfork and torches march against baiting, canonically aroace characters were caught in the fire, and queerplatonic relationships suffered the price of not fitting in the amatonormative and allosexual normative space fandom created. 

It’s a standard for fandom that one of the most necessary reasons for transformative work, for fanfiction mostly, is to make characters confess the love they never did confess on screen/page and, most often than not, fuck each other senseless as a sort of “necessary guarantee of their bond”. Consummation, if you will. 

Statistically speaking, explicit fics tend to be much more popular than non explicit ones and romantic relationships are what move the main search engines of fanfic platforms. 

Headcanon-wise, anyone can do what they want. If a character is interpreted one way or another, that’s not for anyone to police. 

With aroace characters, though, it’s a bit tricky, because it’s incredibly rare the amount of times a character is explicitly in the spectrum, and any evidence you can gather, which isn’t outright hearing it, is a lack of something. 

A lack that fandom interprets in another way. 

You can have a character be sexually attracted and romantically attracted to another and have that be enough for an audience to understand their orientation, to an extent, but an aroace character seems to have to explicitly state it because the lack of romance or sex in their narratives will be interpreted by fandom as “incomplete”. 

It’s more frequent for fandom to interpret a character who is not in a romantic or sexual relationship as “lacking” it and “fix” it in fic than for it to be headcanoned as aroace. 

An adjacent issue happens with this and the old notion of “queer-coding”. Audiences tend to sometimes interpret that lack as the incapacity for a media creator to explicitly state that the character is homosexual. 

The unintended consequence of years of coding, baiting and censorship of non het relationships in media was the invisibilization of relationships canonically in the aroace spectrum. 

For example, the first reaction to Elsa from Frozen not having a romantic relationship in the movie was that she was an amatonormative and allosexual lesbian rather than somewhere in the aroace spectrum. Not that there aren’t a myriad of overlaying possibilities between the two things, but you get my point. 

The lacking, the incompleteness that fandom most often sees in characters is filled in, most often than not, with gay romantic and sexual relationships, as a result of the years of queer-coding in media. You know, the good ol’ “if she doesn’t have a boyfriend, she must be a lesbian” stance. Fandom is, sometimes, like a family dinner with a 60+ year old uncle. 

This is a problem because it creates, within fandom, instances of tug of war between two under-represented factions who both deserve the due representation and which sometimes, very often, overlay in the same people, who fall in both spectrums. It creates arguments and fights for one or other character between the two, as if they were mutually exclusive at all times.  

I recently came across different levels of discourse and comments on two pieces of media for this reason, in two different sides. 

One concerned Mackenzi Lee’s A Lady’s Guide To Petticoats & Piracy, in which the lead is aroace and there is a girl who is romantically attracted to her and there is a hint of a potential qp relationship. After reading it I found in some review spaces opinions that considered the author hadn’t “gone all the way” with it, as if it was “cop out” for a potential lesbian romance, taking into account that the first volume of the series was centered on an mlm relationship, which gave people certain expectations.

The opposite happened in the webcomic Go Get A Roomie, in which a female lead character who seemed to be aroace for years ended up in a romantic and sexual relationship with the protagonist and there isn’t so far much of a descriptive of where her identity lied to begin with, but with some meaningful conversations that seemed to imply the spectrum after having suffered trauma. And this can be perceived as a sort of “deception” and to the problematic notion of aroace-ness as a “treatable phase”. 

Both stories are valid. Both roads towards self-discovery are valid. There isn’t an immediate denial of the spectrum for one or other possibility and both narratives are experiences that happen to people, even maybe the same people at different times in their lives. 

But the two happen to include female relationships and boy are those underrepresented. Like I said, it isn’t that both things can’t overlay in a myriad of places, Lillian could be a demisexual demiromantic, for all I know, Sim could be homoromantic and asexual, we don’t know the specifics. 

It’s likely and valid to have a gut reaction when you think you’re being represented and then you’re not entirely. And that’s understandable. But it’s a pity that we have tugs of war for scraps of representation. 

So, on the one hand, with headcanons, we tend to get fandom fights, most often than not between underrepresented identities, because we’re fighting for the little there is, when in reality we should be uplifting each other...but anyway, moving on. 

That’s all in the realm of interpretation, up until the moment the author makes the characters explicitly make choices and take action. That’s someone having a headcanon because of things the piece of media was doing and then having it proven right or wrong, or never having it proved at all. 

The other thing, where it gets nasty, is when fandom “fixes” canonically aroace characters. This is also incredibly frequent, most often than not with mlm ships, or what fandom considers mlm ships. 

One of the nastiest last year was the Good Omens debacle. 

Neil stated that Aziraphale and Crowley weren’t “homosexual men” because they weren’t “men” and they weren’t sexual beings (the whole “making an effort” thing that explicit fic writers like to latch onto). Neil also said they love each other, however that wants to be interpreted, opening it up enough for it to be platonic or romantic or anything you want. 

Fic writers have written more GO fics in the last year than ever probably, because of the show, and they’ve experimented with a lot of places of the spectrum. I’m not here to judge anyone because a GO fic was my favorite ace explicit fic I’ve read, so interpretations can be fascinating, I’m all here for them.  

The problem arose when people (mostly cis het women) on social media (mostly twitter) started calling Neil a homophobe for not making them pretty much fuck on screen or explicitly state that they were fucking offscreen in canon. 

That’s where we need to draw a line and reevaluate our life choices. 

I can’t count the amount of posts, tweets and reactions I saw rejecting the possibility of Aziraphale and Crowley not being a) cis men and b) allosexual. The two things created a gutted reaction, to the point that you have to consider the nature and intended result of those comments and, in that case, who’s being an intolerant asshole. 

There was a point in time in which fake woke rep discourse became the excuse for people to demand fanservice from creators, especially in the cis het women + mlm media overlay, and this is a problem. We need to separate the discourses, we need to figure out why we’re here and what we’re demanding. 

Another similar example I saw recently, yet less overwhelming, was with Banana Fish and the queerplatonic relationship between Ash and Eiji in canon. 

I came into BF later than most, but when I read the epilogue manga I found one of the earliest descriptions of a qp relationship I’ve seen, and there were a lot of interesting comments made by the author and other people interviewing her about why sex was never a part of their dynamic and how the bond they had was more of soulmates than romantic lovers and why it was meaningful all the same. 

Still, even if the author doesn’t, Banana Fish is considered among the key “BL” animated series of the last few years, alongside stuff like Doukyuusei, Yuri On Ice, Given, etc. And fandom likes to “fix” that “lack of” situation often, apparently. 

This case isn’t as feral as GO but it is, however, deceptive. Coming into BF I never would have guessed their relationship was to be qp because fandom let me believe it wasn’t. 

And, in this case, the author explicitly stated that this was her intention, this was the story she wanted to tell, it wasn’t her adjusting to censorship or having to code her characters, it was, at heart, what we now can consider a qp relationship. 

And, in all of these cases, in which there are aroace characters or relationships involved, or at least somewhere in the aro spectrum or the ace spectrum or both, there’s one main issue behind it: the lack of belief that relationships that aren’t romantic and sexual can be crucial. 

That they can be storytelling worthy.  

In media-creating and in fanwork-creating, it seems to be the norm to have an endgame romance, or at least for romance to be a key part of your content. It’s the expected box to tick for a fulfilling story, it seems, and the lack of it is the “problem” fandom likes to “fix” the most. 

This is also mirrored in the platforms we use. There is a lack of possibility to tag qp relationships as something separated in ao3: the / is for romantic/sexual relationships and the & is for all-encompassing platonic relationships (described by the guidelines as family, teammates, friends, etc.). In order to write a qp relationship you have to tag it & as per guidelines but you have to add another descriptor because you’re not writing family or teammates, and in the case of fandom-polarizing ships, it can be a problem. 

And all of this influences us as creators, to the point that it’s easier to write something we’ve never experienced, like romantic attraction, than it is to write without it, because we’ve heard the romantic stories all the time, we’ve grown up reading them, and we’ve learned that no kudos will come to your fic if you don’t have them in there, because it’s that / what’s gonna move the search engines towards your stuff. 

Maybe, hopefully, with time and more media around us, we’ll learn different ways of exploring transformative fanwork. Maybe while knowing ourselves and others, we’ll start believing that a lack of romantic relationships doesn’t necessarily mean someone was “too much of a coward to not make these two explicitly x or y”. 

Maybe we’ll learn to coexist because, after all, some of these things coexist within our own spectrums sometimes, and it’d be nice to see the capacity for us to not fight for the scraps of rep that media throws at us but be able to understand each other and ourselves enough to create the media that we need. 

[the-desolated-quill]

Good Omens, Queerbaiting And Death Of The Author - Quill’s Scribbles

I confess this is the most reluctant I’ve ever been to write a Scribble. When this topic came up, I remember just groaning and putting my head in my hands because I knew that, due to the nature of what I tend to write about on this blog and the fact that I’m an out and out biromantic demisexual queerbo, people would be asking me to contribute to the discourse. And honestly I don’t particularly want to. I don’t get to enjoy many films and TV shows anymore thanks to the industry doing their very best to ruin everything they touch. Can’t I just watch one good TV show without being dragged into some ideological battle?

Okay. Guess I can’t really put this off any longer.

On the 31st May, the long awaited adaptation of Good Omens was released on Amazon Video. I thought it was quite good. Not perfect. There are some things I could criticise, but overall it was a worthy adaptation of the source material and it was very enjoyable to watch. And that seems to be the general consensus with both critics and fans. However over the past couple of months since its release, a ‘controversy’ began to emerge within the fandom regarding the show’s main characters Aziraphale and Crowley. See, a large proportion of both the media and the Good Omens fanbase have interpreted the angel/demon double act as being gay, but this has sparked a backlash from some fans with them going so far as to accuse the show of queerbaiting as the show never explicitly confirms the characters’ sexuality. This then led to a backlash to the backlash, sparking a whole debate as to what constitutes good LGBT representation. Not only that, Neil Gaiman, the showrunner and original co-author of Good Omens, has stubbornly refused to confirm one way or the other whether or not Aziraphale and Crowley are more than just good friends, which has added further fuel to the fire.

Now before we go any further, I just want to disavow one argument that I see cropping up a lot and that really gets under my skin. That Aziraphale and Crowley can’t possibly be gay because they’re not men. They’re genderless beings that feel no sexual attraction. The implication being that the characters are asexual, but the way you hear people going on about it, the Ineffable Husbands seem less asexual and more like soulless robots. First off, you do know asexual people feel love too, right? We’re not Vulcans. Second, can we stop this ridiculous logic that they can’t be gay because they’re not men? It reminds me of the ‘controversy’ that surrounded Mass Effect 3 when BioWare confirmed that you could play as a gay male Commander Shepard. When people pointed out to the critics and haters that you could already play as a gay Shepard if you picked FemShep and pursued Liara, they retorted by saying that Liara doesn’t count as a woman because she’s a ‘monogendered alien.’ And my response to that was... so? She still looks like a woman and she still uses female pronouns. If FemShep is attracted to her, there’s a good chance she might be gay. It really is that simple. Aziraphale and Crowley may be genderless, but they look like men and use male pronouns. So if they were attracted to each other, they just might be gay. Period.

Anyway. Tangent over. Lets talk about Aziraphale and Crowley. You might be wondering where I stand on this whole issue. Do I believe that Aziraphale and Crowley are gay? Well honestly it depends on which version we’re talking about here. If we’re talking about the book version, I would say probably not. Don’t get me wrong. I’m almost certain book Aziraphale is gay as there are a number of references that seem to suggest that. His bookshop is in Soho, which is famous for its thriving LGBT community, the narrator mentions him going to a ‘discreet gentlemen’s club’ in the 1800s, and there’s of course this brilliant line:

“Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide.”

So yeah. There was never a doubt in my mind that book Aziraphale was gay. (And before anyone comments saying that the next line mentions that Aziraphale isn’t gay because angels are sexless unless they make the effort, let me ask you something. Who, out of all the characters in the book, does he make a genuine effort for? Aha!). Book Crowley on the other hand isn’t quite so clear cut. Sure there are occasional flashes of something, but it could easily just be interpreted as being gestures of friendship rather than romance. Personally I always saw book Crowley as being more aromantic/asexual. In fact their relationship reminded me a lot of my relationship with my best friend. I’m more like Aziraphale, due to being very camp, somewhat old fashioned and often quite emotional, whereas my friend is like Crowley in that she displays a facade of confidence to mask her insecurities and is extremely loyal to her friends. Now please note I’m not trying to destroy anyone’s personal headcanon here. I know for a fact many LGBT people have interpreted and drawn inspiration from Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship for nearly 30 years since the book first came out in 1990, and I wouldn’t dream of depriving anyone of that. I’m just merely describing how I personally interpreted the characters when I read it.

So, while book Aziraphale is almost definitely gay in my opinion, I personally don’t think they were anything more than just good friends. Do I think the same about the TV version? Actually no. In fact completely the opposite. I think TV Aziraphale and Crowley are 100%, unquestionably and unashamedly in love with each other and this view is supported by the extra material Neil Gaiman has written for them, most notably the 30 minute long cold open of the third episode that shows Aziraphale and Crowley’s blossoming relationship over the course of human history, as well as how the show frames them. We hear the kind of swelling, orchestral music you would hear in a romance when Crowley saves Aziraphale’s books from a WW2 bomb, the scenes where the two argue about running away to Alpha Centauri are presented as being like a legitimate breakup (with the addition of some random passerby telling Aziraphale he’s ‘better off without him’), the other angels occasionally refer to Crowley as being Aziraphale’s boyfriend (albeit in a mocking way), and the way Michael Sheen and David Tennant play the characters makes them feel much more like an old married couple rather than being simply friends. There’s even a wonderful moment in the third episode where Crowley asks Aziraphale if he could give him a ride somewhere, to which Aziraphale responds “you go too fast for me Crowley.” It leaves very little room for doubt in my opinion, and yet Neil Gaiman refuses to verbally confirm this, even though the actors and the director have expressed numerous times that they interpreted the characters as such. Not only that, but the writing and filmmaking leaves just enough room for plausible deniability, never explicitly confirming the relationship. So the question remains, does this count as legitimate LGBT representation or is this just a very advanced form of queerbaiting?

Well first it would be useful to talk about what queerbaiting actually is, because a lot of people arguing against Good Omens don’t seem to fully understand the term. Queerbaiting is when a creator hints at a possible same sex romance without ever actually confirming or depicting the relationship. A recent example of this would be Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series. 

JK Rowling first ‘outed’ Dumbledore as gay back in 2007, saying he was in a relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald, but unless you read the interview, you would never have known this because the book doesn’t provide any sort of hint or clue or reference to that relationship. Worse still, when given the opportunity to rectify this in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, Rowling chose instead to downplay the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald significantly. This is queerbaiting. Implying a character might be gay or promising to introduce a gay character only to then backtrack or not fully commit. Another example would be Avengers: Endgame where the Russo Brothers announced there was going to be a gay character in the film only for it to be some nameless guy who’s only on screen for about a minute. It revolves around luring people in with the expectation of LGBT representation only to then snatch it away once they’ve got bums in seats.

(Also, just to clarify, queerbaiting is not when a bisexual or pansexual character becomes romantically involved with someone of the opposite sex. Yes it’s important that we see more bisexual and pansexual characters and yes it’s important we see more same sex couples on screen, but do NOT conflate the two. Deadpool’s pansexuality, for instance, isn’t suddenly invalid just because he has a girlfriend).

So, with this in mind, does Good Omens fit the criteria of queerbaiting. Well the sexuality of the characters are often the focal point of many interviews, with the director and actors explicitly describing Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship as ‘a love story.’ Most notably Michael Sheen, who plays Aziraphale and who has been carrying a torch for the Ineffable Husbands since Good Omens came out. But unlike JK Rowling and the Russos, the makers of Good Omens can back up their words with content. As mentioned above, the way the show frames the relationship makes the implication quite clear. There’s even a bit where Crowley thinks Aziraphale has been killed and he leaves the burning bookshop while ‘Somebody To Love’ is playing in the background. It isn’t really very subtle. So, by my understanding, queerbaiting doesn’t seem particularly accurate when talking about Good Omens. The issue here is one of presentation. The overt subtext is all well and good, but does the fact that there’s no explicit confirmation of their relationship make it invalid? To answer that question, we must look into another relevant term. Queercoding.

Queercoding is when a character is given the traits typically associated with those commonly attributed to gay people, such as effeminate behaviour or ostentatious dress sense. This is used often as a way of getting queer relationships past the censor. Implying a character might be gay without explicitly confirming it for fear of the studio or publisher putting their foot down.

While queercoding is often intrinsically linked to queerbaiting, it’s worth noting that while queerbaiting is always seen as a negative (and rightly so), queercoding is neither positive nor negative. It’s merely a contextual device and can be positive or negative depending on execution. A positive example of queercoding would be Deadpool.

While the Merc with the Mouth has never been officially outed as pansexual, both the comics and the movies in particular have framed him as someone who doesn’t conform to heteronormative expectations. The marketing of both movies present Deadpool in traditionally feminine poses as a way of mocking and commenting on how gender is perceived in these kinds of tentpole blockbusters. The comics often make fairly explicit references towards Deadpool’s sexual flexibility for the purposes of humour, such as in his interactions with characters like Spider-Man or Thor.

The movies follow suit. The first movie is littered with moments where Deadpool alludes to being not entirely straight. He occasionally uses gay slang, we see his girlfriend Vanessa penetrate him with a strap-on during the sex montage, and there are frequent references to how sexy Hugh Jackman is, most notably near the beginning when Deadpool describes how he had to give Wolverine a handjob in order to get his own movie. The second movie meanwhile takes it a step further. Not only is the entirety of Deadpool 2 essentially one big allegory for how members of the LGBT community cope with abuse and discrimination, we also see Deadpool express a sexual interest in Colossus many times, the extended cut even going so far as to depict Deadpool trying to give him a blowjob.

Now as I said, Deadpool has never been officially outed as pansexual. That information comes from one of the comic book writers on Twitter. The comics and movies have never verbally confirmed it. We never hear Deadpool describe himself as such. But to say he’s not queer would be absurd because he clearly is. That’s how he’s framed and presented to us across the majority of media. What makes Deadpool a positive example of queercoding is how we view the character. He’s clearly extremely comfortable with expressing his own sexuality and feels no shame in his antics. While the majority of his queer moments are used for the purposes of humour, we’re always laughing with him, not at him.

Now lets take a look at a negative example of queercoding:

This is Moriarty from the BBC series Sherlock written by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. Sherlock is without a doubt one of the worst adaptations of the canon that’s ever been made and the show’s treatment of Moriarty is a big reason for that. When he’s first introduced in The Great Game, when he’s posing as Molly’s boyfriend, Sherlock deduces that he’s gay based on really no evidence at all other than that he puts product in his hair and his underpants are showing. It’s ostensibly playing on that stereotype that any man who takes pride in their appearance isn’t masculine and therefore must be gay. (if that were true then David Beckham would be the gayest man on the fucking planet). While it becomes clear at the end of the episode that this was just an act Moriarty was putting on to fool Sherlock, he never really loses the metrosexual image. He boasts about his ‘Westwood’ clothes, we see him prance and preen like some over the top camp supervillain (more on that later) and he makes numerous double entendres that imply he’s interested in men, specifically Sherlock. There’s even a moment in The Reichenbach Fall where we see Moriarty sitting on a throne wearing the crown jewels. Ha! Do you get it? Because he’s a queen!

What makes this form of queercoding more offensive than Deadpool is, again, how we as the audience are supposed to perceive him. Moffat and Gatiss want us to laugh at Moriarty’s camp behaviour and they clearly find the prospect of shipping Moriarty and Sherlock utterly absurd, as demonstrated in the episode The Empty Hearse where we see the Sherlock fan club suggest Sherlock survived the fall because he and Moriarty were secretly lovers. This bit was there for no reason other than to take the piss out of Sherlock fans who read too much into the show’s intentional subtext. Also, crucially, Moriarty has no real character or backstory other than as a gay stereotype. He’s a lazily written caricature who serves no real purpose other than as a homophobic punchline. There’s a lot more to Deadpool than just being queer. With Moriarty however, there’s simply nothing underneath.

Moriarty is also an example of how queercoding is most commonly applied to villains. There are countless examples of this across various media over the years. The Joker from Batman, for instance. Ursula from The Little Mermaid. Scar from The Lion King. In these cases, whether intentionally or not, queercoding plants ideas of gender identity into the viewers’ heads. A male supervillain like the Joker is presented as being eccentric, arch and incredibly camp while Batman, the hero, is big and strong and serious and honourable. A manly man. Likewise, Ursula is presented as butch and unfeminine, scheming and malevolent, whereas Ariel is attractive and sweet and innocent. The ideal woman. Queercoded villains have been used to demonise the LGBT community for decades by presenting an ideal, hetronormative image of what a man or woman should be like, battling an antagonist that doesn’t fit in with traditional gender roles. Obviously there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a camp male villain or a distinctly unfeminine female villain, but it’s worth bearing in mind where these ideas originally came from and the impact it could potentially have.

So lets bring this back to Good Omens. The queercoding of Aziraphale and Crowley is obvious and it’s never presented in negative terms. (there’s a moment where Shadwell refers to Aziraphale as a pansy, but considering the man is a complete moron who draws eyes on milk bottles and thinks nipples are the gold standard way of identifying a witch, I think we can safely say he’s not to be taken seriously). In fact their relationship is incredibly sweet and endearing. Except... I can understand why Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman weren’t explicit in expressing the characters’ sexuality when the book was first published. It was 1990, both Pratchett and Gaiman were still relatively fresh faces and Western society’s attitudes toward homosexuality weren’t quite as progressive then as they are now. But it’s now 2019. Things have changed. Gay characters are appearing more frequently in books, movies and TV shows, people in general are more accepting of the LGBT community and Gaiman is now a hugely successful author with a lot of influence in the industry. Why not just make the relationship explicit?

Well there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that it really doesn’t need to be explicit. You would never hear a man and a woman talk about how incredibly hetero they are, would you? Actions speak louder than words after all. But when the two characters in question are of the same gender, suddenly the whole thing becomes a massive debate to the point where unless someone comes right out and says they are gay, people simply won’t buy it. Deadpool, tragically, has suffered from this with obnoxious frat boys deliberately glossing over the obvious queer subtext and hijacking the character for their own self-aggrandisement. This really shouldn’t be the case and this whole ‘straight until proven gay’ mindset isn’t the fault of the show. It’s entirely the fault of the viewer. The second involves our last topic of discussion. The Death of the Author. (no pun intended. RIP Pratchett).

Death of the Author refers to a literary essay written by the theorist Roland Barthes in 1967, which argues against critiquing a piece of literature based on authorial intent. Basically, once a book or movie or TV show is released to the general public, any relation to its creator becomes immaterial. The work in question must stand on its own and be judged independently. The intention of the author no longer matters. (I’m simplifying obviously, but that’s basically the gist of it. If you ever get the chance, read the essay yourself. It’s a fascinating read). Gaiman appears to be a firm believer in this philosophy. On his Tumblr account, @neil-gaiman, when asked about the the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley, he often refuses to comment, invoking the Death of the Author mindset. It’s up the reader/viewer to interpret the characters. If you think they’re gay, then they’re gay. If you think they’re just friends, then they’re just friends. Some could call this a bit of a cop out, and you’re entitled to do so, but I understand where Gaiman is coming from. We’ve seen writers like JK Rowling get into trouble for queerbaiting, saying that she always intended for Dumbledore to be gay, but never actually showing any real evidence for it in the text, and Gaiman doesn’t want to fall into the same trap. Plus it demonstrates that Gaiman respects the views and interpretations of his fans, unlike Rowling who responded to criticism of her queerbaiting on Twitter with GIFs of people sticking their fingers in their ears and ‘blocking out the haters.’

In some ways I do feel very sorry for Gaiman. On the one hand he wants to stay true to his and Pratchett’s original vision, but on the other hand he doesn’t want to disappoint the hundreds of fans who do view the characters as being gay. Good Omens has been cited as an extremely positive influence on many queer readers, some even going so far as to say that it was this very book that allowed them to finally accept their identities and come out of the closet. Heartwarming stories like this can be found all over the web and hopefully many more will emerge now that the TV adaptation has been released. If Gaiman were to suddenly turn around in an interview one day and say ‘oh. No. Sorry. Aziraphale and Crowley were always intended to be just friends. You’re all wrong’, it would destroy people who invested so much in this relationship. Likewise, if he explicitly confirmed in an interview that the two characters are definitely gay, people would either accuse him of queerbaiting if the show doesn’t fully live up to their expectations or accuse him of shoving his political opinions down their throats. He can’t win either way really. That being said, I can’t help but respect Gaiman for sticking to his guns. It demonstrates that he’s confident in his skills as a writer and his ability to make his intentions clear in the text, that he respects the ideas and opinions of his readers and fans, and that he also respects the ideas and opinions of the cast and crew of the Good Omens TV show. While Gaiman has refused to confirm one way or the other, others like Michael Sheen or  director Douglas Mackinnon have made their views very clear. Aziraphale and Crowley are in love. That’s their interpretation and they have every right to it.

So do I believe Good Omens is queerbaiting? In my opinion, no. Does that mean I believe it’s faultless? Again, no. If the intention is to depict Aziraphale and Crowley as being lovers, then I think they could have done a bit more. Obviously I’m not suggesting a full blown sex scene or anything like that. Even something as simple as them holding hands or hugging each other would have done. Some physical intimacy of some kind. Because as it stands, Good Omens does share problems with a lot of other TV shows in how they present same sex couples, in that they’re consciously aware that they are presenting to a heterosexual viewer. This is why a relationship between two women is often sexualised and eroticised for the titillation of straight men whereas the relationship between two men can often be quite chaste. Very rarely do you see two men making out or doing anything beyond a quick peck. Good Omens sadly fits into that camp, though just to be clear, I’m not blaming Neil Gaiman or the show for this. I’m merely saying that this is part of a wider systemic issue that needs to be talked about and addressed as the industry moves forward. (Hell, that might as well be be the title of my entire Tumblr profile). Also, whether you believe the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley is platonic or romantic, it does not change the impact this story has had on many LGBT readers nor the fact that the story is about love. It’s important to bear this in mind because while, yes, it is important to have this discussion, we can’t lose sight of the positive message it conveys with regards to building bridges and closing divides between opposing groups.

“And perhaps the recent exertions had had some fallout in the nature of reality because, while they were eating, for the first time ever, a nightingale sang in Berkeley Square. No one heard it over the noise of the traffic, but it was there, right enough.”

[kinmemory]

haha anyway im halfway thru foxhole court and if u call neil demisexual please god just block me

i Do Not want discourse im just extremely uncomfortable with a headcanon like that especially given neils past abuse.

as a general rule, basing anything abt yourself (gender, how you experience attraction [ie asexuality], sexuality, etc) off trauma isnt healthy and its made very clear to me even with what little ive read that neils "lack of attraction" stems DIRECTLY from his abuse because it is. outright point blank stated.